Destroying Iran's Nuclear Capabilities

[edwest2]

So you have more faith in human nationalism than the teachings of Christ?

I think this is what biblical scholar Walter Wink calls “the Myth of Redemptive Violence”. We frequently say we believe in God and accept Christ’s message, but when push comes to shove we always turn to violence and earthly might.

Somehow, the fact that early Christians not only survived the direct persecution of Rome, a super power, they ultimately triumphed, becoming ‘the empire’, all without resorting to any violence whatsoever.

The idea that ‘the Russians’ were fellow children of the same God seems to get lost. Ignore the demonization and look at their perspective. We, not they, had just unleashed destruction on entire cities. If no other world power developed similiar weapons, who would hold us in check? What would stop us from pre-emptive war against the weak to impose our will?

Far fetched? Consider that the descendants of ‘the Russians’ have seen us launch a bloody pre-emptive war against a much weaker nation that we did not agree with…

Dehumanizing everyone outside your group is a common practice, probably going back to the very beginning of our emergence as a species. But that is not who God calls us to be.

You are all over the map on this one. After World War II, the United States was in Korea and then, Vietnam. I suggest you read up on why we were in those two places. As far as the Russians, read up on their military adventures from the end of World War II till 1993. Go ahead.

God calls me to be a peacemaker. That does not mean I will use my country’s might to bully anyone but will clearly show I have the means to defend myself. Dehumanizing? Look up “Hollywood propaganda films.” It was their job to dehumanize, and the same with Koreans and the Vietcong. I did not invent the idea.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Elric]

Fair enough. However, I wasn’t trying to twist anything. I was merely hoping you would clarify you point, and you have.

That was just a comment to cover all the bases.

Unfortunately no country at any time has ever been squeaky clean. Just because one is far from perfect, doesn’t mean they can’t point out or address issues elsewhere.

Yes it does, especally if it calls itself a christian nation.

It appears that is was providential that total devastation was avoided during the Cold War. Hopefully we’ll all somehow make it through this rising mess.

One way would be by leaving things be, another way would be to get rid of the things that we are accusing others of having.

We survived the Codl War only by a sheer fluke, idiots ran things on both sides of the fence and it was really by the grace of God that the planet wasnt destroyed.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. All the best!

Blessings,

JB

Your welcome, same to you.

 

[Elric]

Uh, no. Though even small children started to figure out that ‘duck and cover’ was silly. For me the low point was Vietnam. In addition to challenging my Faith, and even my humanity, it left me with a permanent distrust of chickenhawks - folks who claim that warfare is essential, but somehow don’t see it as their job to fight it.

I am not a pacifist, I believe we are called to resist evil. But in the absense of shared sacrifice it is too easy to resort to evil condition of war. Think of terms like “cut and run”. The true ravages of war have been trivialized to the point where national machismo is an effective talking point.

Umm, that was scarcasm. Of course it wasnt fun, which is why I put the word fun in “”.

Oh well, live and learn.

 

[SoCalRC]

Assuming Iran was to attack Israel directly (whether it was in retaliation or for some other reason), how do you feel we should handle that?

To me, the circumstances matter, as does ‘direct’ vs. ‘proxy’. Again, it comes down to ultimate objectives. With Iraq we have already greatly enhanced Iran’s influence and power in the region.

What I most want to avoid is making the current rhetoric real. That is I do not want to promote a nasty gangster regime into an Islamic world power. Saddam dreamed of it, but as a secular dictator, could not be it. It is still far fetched with Iran, but the idea still scares me.

My biggest concern is that the US is currently not even all that sincere. Once the rhetoric switched suddenly from AQI to Iran backed militias I started to worry that US politics are being triangulated in. After all, we are now talking about something other than Iraq, and the related problems of Turkey and Pakistan.

I know it is an unpleasant thought, but look at Iraq. All the main characters here are Project for the New American Century folks. Of course, long term strategic occupation for US interests - namely oil, was/is a goal. You don’t write about something for 10 years, then abandon all your thinking when you actually get to act. But we have yet to have an open policy debate about it. And it still matters. The Iraqi’s see the largest embassy on the planet, billions spent on permanent bases, etc. And it fits the Islam extremist rhetoric. Likewise, there have been attempts to get the administration to openly commit to no permanent bases to help cut the unrest and violence, and we’ve been coy instead.

This lets the enemy shape the narrative in the region and helps keep us isolated from more support in the global community.

I think that the same risk is occuring in Iran. We are heating up the rhetoric, but our stated strategic goals remain vague at best. Remember, the same international agency that was right about Iraq’s nuclear program won’t backup our assertions about Iran either.

If our principle concern was/is Iran, then I still think we would do well to aide some other player in taking up the issue in the ‘court of world opinion’. We currently have no global credibility. Getting angry or indignant does not change that. So if we are serious about the issue and really want results, I think we should be using less rhetoric and doing more coallition building.

 

[SoCalRC]

Umm, that was scarcasm.

I know. That is why I used “Um”.

 

[BobP123]

What is going on here? Nobody here gets to decide. The Pope isn’t going to be called by the Pentagon about dropping bombs. If I were the President, I’d place a friendly phone call to the leadership of North Korea, Iran and whoever else is on the enemies list and tell them: “Instant wipe out if you threaten us or our allies.” They sure aren’t going to call me to get my opinion.

The only threats I’ve heard from Iran were similar to Saddam’s: price the oil in euros rather that U.S. dollars. Think about it. That could damage the U.S. economy more than any nuclear bombs if they had any. Should the U.S. attack them (again) for that kind of threat? That’s what it’s all about isn’t it? Iran has no nuclear bombs to attack Israel or the U.S. with. Even if they were to have, they (unlike Saudi Arabia) would hardly be able to launch any kind of a surprise attack, being watched on radar 24/7.

 

[SoCalRC]

You are all over the map on this one.

Actually, no. Pretty much straight Christian theology.

I suggest you read up on why we were in those two places.

I was in one (enlisted, almost two years in-country as a medic), lost an uncle in the other. My brother also enlisted and our father was a WW-II combat veteran (Capt. USMC).

Since you seemingly feel no reservations when it comes to flexing military might to get your way around the world, should I presume that you’ve had experience with enlisted service as well? It would seem a little inappropriate for you to be lecturing me on, say, Vietnam if your closest personal experience was watching Walter Cronkite while clutching a GI Joe action figure.

 

[edwest2]

I’m not sure where my draft card for the Vietnam debacle is, but Nixon came in and wound it down so I didn’t have to go. Then he had to resign from office a little later.

I agree with the poster who wrote that Iran is being watched 24/7. I’m sure that if, and when, anyone decides to do something, I will not be involved and the same is true for the rest of the country. You are missing the point that the people will not be consulted. Only those in the military will make that call, if they feel it necessary.

God bless,
Ed

 

[bobzills]

God calls me to be a peacemaker.

That’s what I thought also.
I read somewhere: Blessed are the peacemakers.

 

[bobzills]

Not an easy choice for Truman to make, but I believe he made the right one. War sometimes forces leaders to make very difficult decisions.

I believe it is morally wrong to deliberately kill innocent civilians, and maim children for life, with an Atomic bomb. I recall one of the ten commandments:
Thou shalt not kill.
America was the one who developed and used the A-Bomb. Now they are angry that others might be using their technology to do the same thing.

 

[bobzills]

Take it how you want, or twist it how you like.

Im saying that perhaps we should clean up our own backyards before we start inspecting others…

Yes. America is the one with all the latest nuclear weapons to kill everyone on the world ten or twenty times over. And America is the one with the chemical weapons to wipe out everyone on the face of the earth. And America is the one with the biological weapons which can poison everyone on earth ten times over.
I am in favor of peace and the use of peaceful diplomacy to settle these disputes, instead of going around killing children and other civilians who can’t begin to understand these insane political games which are being played.

 

[Elric]

Yes. America is the one with all the latest nuclear weapons to kill everyone on the world ten or twenty times over. And America is the one with the chemical weapons to wipe out everyone on the face of the earth. And America is the one with the biological weapons which can poison everyone on earth ten times over.

I remember when the Iraq issue was just starting and they had just made the accusation over WMDs in Iraq that I was reading the paper.

The first couple of pages were full of these accusations and all things related to it. But on the 5th page of the paper was a miniscule report about 30 (ish) Americans killed because of a biological weapons expierement that happened in the United States. There was no follow up about it and no mention on the evening news.

I just remember thinking “Isnt this what they want to go to war with Iraq about?”

I am in favor of peace and the use of peaceful diplomacy to settle these disputes, instead of going around killing children and other civilians who can’t begin to understand these insane political games which are being played.

I agree, I have a friend who recently returned from Iraq where he was a medic. He told some lovely stories about picking shrapnel out of wounds that were days/weeks old from civilians (women and children), he said that the shrapnel came from both sides of the conflict.

Strangely enough, he is against the war.

 

[LRThunder]

I believe it is morally wrong to deliberately kill innocent civilians, and maim children for life, with an Atomic bomb. I recall one of the ten commandments:
Thou shalt not kill.
America was the one who developed and used the A-Bomb. Now they are angry that others might be using their technology to do the same thing.

Unfortunately, it was either use those bombs to end the war quickly or engage in an invasion of Japan that would’ve killed MORE people, including civilians.

And just because we used those weapons doesn’t and shouldn’t preclude us from wanting to prevent certain nations from obtaining those weapons.

 

[Melchior]

You might be right Melchior. I’m just not sure about the timing of this all. It’s not like we can have tremendous faith in our intelligence community at this point.

True. But this is very different than Iraq. Iran has said openly that they have a nuclear program and have made several threats, usually in farsi, against us and Israel. So all the intelligence we need is on the nightly news.

 

[edwest2]

“All the intelligence we need…”? “on the nightly news…”? You’re joking, right? If I was part of Iranian Intelligence, all I have to do is watch the nightly news and call my buddies to annouce the Americans are coming to drop bombs tomorrow, around 4 PM.

I mean, there are people sitting at the National Reconnaissance Office analyzing spy photos day and night. I’m positive the Pentagon isn’t going to make an announcement that bombers are on their way to attack Iran’s nuclear whatever.

God bless,
Ed

 

[bilop]

Uh, bilop? Your last line was, uh, very official sounding.

I think it would be a mistake to believe anything is going to happen with Iran. When and if the US moves on this issue will depend on a lot more information than anyone here possesses. And even on the off chance that someone here knows a little more, you don’t write such things on a public message board.

God bless,
Ed

Nothing official. I have no knowledge of any sort of U.S. gov’t intentions.

What I stated was just common sense that anyone who knows anything about military affairs could tell you.

We have no interest in occupying Iran, or even toppling their gov’t. The U.S.'s only goal would be to eliminate their nuke capabilities and degrade their military.

This would involve almost zero ground troops (the U.S. might occupy some offshore islands or oil platforms). It would be a multi-week campaign of bombing and missile strikes.

Civilian casulaties would likely be very limited, unless the Iranians have deliberately placed military facilities in high density areas.

God Bless

 

[SoCalRC]

I’m not sure where my draft card for the Vietnam debacle is, but Nixon came in and wound it down so I didn’t have to go. Then he had to resign from office a little later.

It is OK to be young. Forgive me, but you don’t sound like someone who was 18 before 1973. We always talk about lottery number, deferrment, alternate service, etc.

Also, you are a little hazy on history. Nixon expanded the war. He defying congress and began bombing a neighboring country. The war ended because a Democratic Congress stopped providing funds. Even though the war was spectacularly unpopular, even though we are talking about millions of veterens and compulsory service, and even though the direct costs were mounting in a dismall economy, there was political fall out. Even I resented it and I hated the war.

That is why today’s Democratic Congress is so leary to do the same thing with Iraq. This war is not being fought by middle America, but a tiny number of sorely abused volunteers. We aren’t even paying for it, we are financing it with China and leaving a bill for great grandchildren to pay. The thinking is that war is more palatable when most Americans are insulated from it, so the political fallout from a messy end will be greater.

But I am most interested in your use of the term “debacle”. Our current leadership think Vietnam was a wonderful idea. Neither the president or his VP wished to serve, but both actively supported the war. In fact, the president just compared Iraq to the “mistake” of ending the war in Vietnam.

These are the folks doing the fear mongering about Iran, and who also told us now debunked stories and WMDs and AQ ties in Iraq. If you haven’t seen eye to eye with them on foreign policy for decades, why so anxious to adopt their ‘might first’ policies again now?

 

[bobzills]

Unfortunately, it was either use those bombs to end the war quickly or engage in an invasion of Japan that would’ve killed MORE people, including civilians.

I don’t think so. What are diplomats for? What is the human mind for ? Is the human mind supposed to be used to kill and A-Bomb children or is it supposed to be used to promote peace and peaceful resolution of problems? Why not try for peace and diplomatic resolution of problems instead of A-Bombing children? I believe that this use of A-Bombs on children is insane. And further it is contrary to the commandment:
Thou shalt not kill.

 

[SoCalRC]

I don’t think so. What are diplomats for? What is the human mind for ? Is the human mind supposed to be used to kill and A-Bomb children or is it supposed to be used to promote peace and peaceful resolution of problems? Why not try for peace and diplomatic resolution of problems instead of A-Bombing children? I believe that this use of A-Bombs on children is insane. And further it is contrary to the commandment:
Thou shalt not kill.

It is a problem of putting Faith in might. The thinking is, ‘we showed them real might, of course they surrendered’. But the Japanese military leadership did not recommend surrender after either bomb.

Remember, the emporer was a diety. Bombs did not make the Japanese abandon their beliefs. “Unconditional Surrender” implied the loss of a ‘god’, so Japan fought on. It was only after the ‘god’ instructed them to, that surrender occured. And, even after the bombs, we let them keep their leader - the previous sticking point in negotiations.

A common opinion I hear from Japanese I have worked with over the years is that they can forgive the first bomb. They understand the rational, even if they don’t agree with it. But many seem to believe that the second bomb wasn’t even strategic, just a desire to see if the alternate design would work. Given that we had no third bomb and would have needed time to produce one, I can’t dismiss that opinion out of hand.

 

[Pete_1]

I think war would fuel further extremeism, it would just give them an excuse to attack the western world, if the US and Europe refused to trade with Iran it would not be able to get its nuclear material anyway (i think it gets it from Russia).